Why would God create Evolution?

PeaceSeeker said:

The universe evolved through time by intelligent guidance .

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated dribble.


At no point in our 4.6 Billion year history, is there any indication what so ever for any type of guidance.

when the concept of God is really quite simple

Click to expand...

That is correct

Man has made this god, and all different cultures have described him differently.

outhouse said:

Unsubstantiated dribble.


At no point in our 4.6 Billion year history, is there any indication what so ever for any type of guidance.




That is correct

Man has made this god, and all different cultures have described him differently.

Click to expand...

Diversity is a good thing.
A few of us are bound to get it right.
The large numbers help to increase the odds.

your odds are close to none.

Thief said:

Diversity is a good thing.
A few of us are bound to get it right.
The large numbers help to increase the odds.

your odds are close to none.

Click to expand...

Irony, sweet irony.

LuisDantas said:

Irony, sweet irony.

Click to expand...

and a little iron for you too.

'...from His mouth a double edged sword....'
so I've heard.

Revoltingest said:

What better way is there to make the "products"?
Were there a supreme creator, it clearly used the laws of physics to create astronomical
objects, so the same would work just fine for life. Besides, it has no reason to be in a hurry.

Click to expand...

What he said!

Ouroboros said:

But... I'm not talking about "my" God. You made the statement "Ok, so you DO believe in a god, that wants to have surprises?" in an earlier post.

The idea of a God who wants surprises is a hypothetical God and possible reasonable explanation to the purposes a Theistic God would have. A Theistic God that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean I can't talk hypothetically about such a God.

I'm not throwing around any words here. We're still talking about the Theistic God (a personal God), which I don't personally believe in (regardless of your statement that you think I do). I don't believe in a personal Theistic God.

However, I do believe that it's reasonable that we can still continue to debate, discuss, reason, etc about a hypothetical God (which isn't my personal God) with reasonable arguments and claims.

So we can leave my beliefs apart and continue to discuss the hypothetical answer to why the Theistic/Personal God (Yahweh and the like) would have a reason to create the world and evolution.

My suggestion is, he was bored.

And the counter argument isn't "well, you're a pantheist and confuse the word God" since that's not the God-type we're actually debating.

And no, a Personal/Theistic God isn't the kind'a God I believe in. But I still can debate about it that kind'a God and different attributes.

You see, even if a person isn't a professional chef (no, that doesn't mean that I am one because I'm mentioning it) he/she can still have opinions and ideas about food.

The same way, I can have ideas about the hypothetical God (Theistic version, that I don't believe in) just the same as you do, even if neither one of us believe in the Theistic God.

Click to expand...

I think you somewhat missed my point.
I don't care if you believe in that god you propose here, that's not relevant.
The point I've made was: If you just use the term "god" for "everything that exists", you are making it unnecessarily confusing, given that we already use the term "god" to describe other things, and that we call "everything that exists" reality.

Now, THIS comment you used here now suggests that this god actually isn't just everything there is, but that it actually is a conscious entity. If you attach THAT to it, you obviously don't mean the same thing anymore as everybody else when describing "reality".

That's why I now have to ask for clarification:
The god we are talking about here (the one you propose as a possibility) is it an actual entity, a conscious being, or are you just using the term "god" as a "supstitute" for the term "reality"?

outhouse said:

Man has made this god, and all different cultures have described him differently.

Click to expand...

Yet He always seems to resemble a conservative, immensely powerful member of the society that generated Him, mirroring its ideas of propriety and general outlook on life.

RichardParker said:

I think you somewhat missed my point.
I don't care if you believe in that god you propose here, that's not relevant.
The point I've made was: If you just use the term "god" for "everything that exists", you are making it unnecessarily confusing, given that we already use the term "god" to describe other things, and that we call "everything that exists" reality.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not confusing. I tried really hard to explain the difference.

We're discussing two different things here. I was really not interested in talking about the pantheistic God (see more here: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) but about the Theistic God, which is not the God I believe in. I'm a naturalistic pantheism. Read my label.

Now, THIS comment you used here now suggests that this god actually isn't just everything there is, but that it actually is a conscious entity. If you attach THAT to it, you obviously don't mean the same thing anymore as everybody else when describing "reality".

Click to expand...

No. You're mixing up the two.

The only reason I was mentioning the pantheistic God was because you claimed that the Monotheistic God was my God. It isn't. I was talking about and arguing about the Monotheistic God from the hypothetical standpoint, and it's sad that all this sidetracking has to happen that has nothing to do with the issue we were debating.

That's why I now have to ask for clarification:
The god we are talking about here (the one you propose as a possibility) is it an actual entity, a conscious being, or are you just using the term "god" as a "supstitute" for the term "reality"?

Click to expand...

Which one of them? My God or the hypothetical Monotheistic God that's not my God?

When I was talking answering "why would God create the world" I assumed we talked about the Monotheistic God (which is supposed to be conscious). I don't believe in the Monotheistic God. But if we do talk about the Monotheistic God (which I don't believe in), then the answer to "why would God (Monotheistic) create the world?" is that he was bored of everything being predictable. It's a fair reason for a Monotheistic God who can do anything he wants and always knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Entertainment usually comes from not-knowing what's happening next.

So, again, Pantheistic God (my God), no, that's not the one we're talking about.

Monotheistic God (conscious, aware, having goals and making decisions), had supposedly a reason (and I don't believe in this God), and the reason (I suggested as a hypothetical reason) was that he needed surprises.

Now, two different Gods. Two different topics. The suggested reason has nothing to do with if the Pantheistic God is real or not. Agreed?

A god would likely not create evolution. Evolution occurred. The conclusion is obvious.

Ouroboros said:

Now, two different Gods. Two different topics. The suggested reason has nothing to do with if the Pantheistic God is real or not. Agreed?

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I surely misunderstood.
I still find it odd, that you seem to call something a "god" that could essentially just be called "reality" (which seems to apply for your pantheistic god), but that's on a different subject.

Now, sure. The hypothetical theistic god you propose here certainly COULD be using evolution...
But this god doesn't match the god most theists actually try to defend.
Because their god usually knows everything from the beginning to the end. So there is no surprise even possible.
He also couldn't be "bored", and then get "not bored" anymore, because they usually describe a god who is unchanging.

The god you describe seems much more like one of the ancient gods, with very human features (like the ability to get bored in the first place), but this doesn't match the general theistic believes we have today, I think.

So, my question would be:
Why would any of the modern god-concepts use evolution, when surprises are clearly not an option.

RichardParker said:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I surely misunderstood.

Click to expand...

And I think I misunderstood some things you said too. That's why the frustration. My bad.

I still find it odd, that you seem to call something a "god" that could essentially just be called "reality" (which seems to apply for your pantheistic god), but that's on a different subject.

Click to expand...

Yup. For another day.

Now, sure. The hypothetical theistic god you propose here certainly COULD be using evolution...
But this god doesn't match the god most theists actually try to defend.

Click to expand...

Most or many theists, probably, yes. But there are some theists who find evolution to be compatible with the theistic God. The first time I heard one, a rabbi, explained it and he even used Genesis in the Bible to support his view of evolution, I was a bit surprised. I never thought about it the way he explained it. The literalist, anti-evolution theists, have to interpret Genesis a specific way, just as the pro-evolutionist theist can interpret the same verses a different way. Neither one has the ultimate truth. It's all about personal views in the end.

Because their god usually knows everything from the beginning to the end. So there is no surprise even possible.

Click to expand...

I know. And I agree.

But... a God know has everything still lacks something. A God who knows everything still lacks some knowledge. A God who can do everything can still not do somethings. All the "omni" categories are internally flawed.

He also couldn't be "bored", and then get "not bored" anymore, because they usually describe a god who is unchanging.

Click to expand...

Yup. I know.

That's why the "omni-" is flawed, ultimately. Neither one of the omni's can be totally and absolutely included everything. If God is a being who knows something, decides to do things, acts upon interest etc, must be less than the perfect idealized version of "omni". God must have some limitations to be a being and being able to act, decide, have thoughts, etc.

The god you describe seems much more like one of the ancient gods, with very human features (like the ability to get bored in the first place), but this doesn't match the general theistic believes we have today, I think.

Click to expand...

I agree. This overly idealized version of omni-God is not only impossible but not quite compatible even with the original Judeo-Christian version, in my opinion. This super-omni version is a result of heavy influence from philosophy and such. That's my impression at least.

I think the early Christians had a more anthropomorphized God that the modern idealized God.

For instance, just take the concept of omnipresent. Is God present in Hell? Is God present in the devil? He would have to be if he's truly omnipresent. But what about some Christians idea that "sin is a separation from God" or the other version "Hell is a separation from God." Either one can't be true in the complete idealized omnipresent version of God.

So, my question would be:
Why would any of the modern god-concepts use evolution, when surprises are clearly not an option.

Click to expand...

I think they accept a God who is not as "omni" as we tend to think, but a semi-omni God. A God who can predict certain things about the future, but not in every detail. A God who can do most anything, but not everything. God can for instance not create a logical contradiction. The core nature of God himself would be logic. Something that not even God could go against. At least, that's what I think people who accepts theism and evolution subconsciously accept, a lesser form of omni God.

Ouroboros said:

That's why the "omni-" is flawed, ultimately. Neither one of the omni's can be totally and absolutely included everything. If God is a being who knows something, decides to do things, acts upon interest etc, must be less than the perfect idealized version of "omni". God must have some limitations to be a being and being able to act, decide, have thoughts, etc.


I agree. This overly idealized version of omni-God is not only impossible but not quite compatible even with the original Judeo-Christian version, in my opinion. This super-omni version is a result of heavy influence from philosophy and such. That's my impression at least.

I think the early Christians had a more anthropomorphized God that the modern idealized God.

For instance, just take the concept of omnipresent. Is God present in Hell? Is God present in the devil? He would have to be if he's truly omnipresent. But what about some Christians idea that "sin is a separation from God" or the other version "Hell is a separation from God." Either one can't be true in the complete idealized omnipresent version of God.


I think they accept a God who is not as "omni" as we tend to think, but a semi-omni God. A God who can predict certain things about the future, but not in every detail. A God who can do most anything, but not everything. God can for instance not create a logical contradiction. The core nature of God himself would be logic. Something that not even God could go against. At least, that's what I think people who accepts theism and evolution subconsciously accept, a lesser form of omni God.

Click to expand...

I think you bring some important things up. I want to add a couple things I see for people who go to church. Normally they don't even belive in god cause of the sky daddy concept. Most believe in some ineffable force of some sort. Yet here in the west we don't normally even know there are alternative deity concepts that actually make sense. Like what people normally believe without ever being able to express it.

Sapiens said:

A god would likely not create evolution. Evolution occurred. The conclusion is obvious.

Click to expand...

God created chemistry.
Therefore evolution.

There is no conclusion.....

Thief said:

God created chemistry.

Click to expand...

This is debatable. You'd first have to present verifiable evidence your god exist then you'd have to show evidence your god created chemistry. If you want us all to accept it on "faith" then we're at an impasse again.

Therefore evolution

Click to expand...

So you do accept the facts of evolution? So why such a long winded debate over a subject you agree with..?

Why would evolution create a god ?.

outhouse said:

Unsubstantiated dribble.


At no point in our 4.6 Billion year history, is there any indication what so ever for any type of guidance.

.

Click to expand...

But that does not mean evidence will not turn up. Science has not ground to a halt you know.

Sapiens said:

A god would likely not create evolution. Evolution occurred. The conclusion is obvious.

Click to expand...

But the consciousness of God could evolve and that would be seen in the physical attributes of evolution

Robert.Evans said:

But that does not mean evidence will not turn up.

Click to expand...

No, but it means that, until this evidence turns up, believing in it without evidence is a bad idea and pretty much just gullibility.

Dirty Penguin said:

This is debatable. You'd first have to present verifiable evidence your god exist then you'd have to show evidence your god created chemistry. If you want us all to accept it on "faith" then we're at an impasse again.



So you do accept the facts of evolution? So why such a long winded debate over a subject you agree with..?

Click to expand...

From the beginning....choose.....
Spirit first?...or substance?

Spirit first, then God is Creator.
The chemistry is His.
The rules belong to Him.

We are living in borrowed substance.

RichardParker said:

No, but it means that, until this evidence turns up, believing in it without evidence is a bad idea and pretty much just gullibility.

Click to expand...

That is not the point though. Most things come from ideas and then we look for things to back them up with. Believers have the inner witness... non-believes don't. So it is not gullible to see things which are in truth, spiritually discerned anyway. We have evidence. Atheists just don't seem to accept this, or won't